Chapter 5.
B. Battle over Japanese Government’s Response to UN Committee on
The Elimination of Discrimination against Women
By Sugita Mio

An extraordinary opportunity
On February 15 and 16, 2016 in Geneva, during a session of the CEDAW (Committee on
the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women), a milestone was achieved inconnection with the dispute concerning comfort women (prostitutes who serviced
Japanese military personnel during World War II).
As we outlined in Chapter 4, CEDAW submitted a questionnaire to the Japanese
government in the summer of 2015. In it the Committee stated that it had learned (for the
first time) that there was no evidence in documents examined by the Japanese
government that military or government authorities had compelled anyone to serve as acomfort woman. Having been informed of that fact, CEDAW requested elucidation fromthe government.
CEDAW and other UN committees had been persistent in their criticism of the Japanese
government, and had assaulted it with demand after demand. The criticism was rooted in
the misconception that comfort women were sex slaves. However, Japan’s Foreign
Ministry had failed to repudiate that criticism by stating that no evidence has been foundsupporting the claim that military authorities or the government compelled anyone toserve as a comfort woman, which is the truth. Instead, the ministry fended off the attacks
on it by emphasizing the fact that it had paid tribute to the memory of the comfort women,
and had established the AWF (Asian Women’s Fund), which had made financial
contributions to former comfort women.
Most assuredly, the Foreign Ministry’s stance (which served only to create theimpression that it concurred with the unwarranted criticism) encouraged thedissemination of lies concocted by South Korea and anti-Japanese elements in Japanthroughout the international community. It also helped pave the way for a profusion of
comfort-woman statue installations.
It was the Coomaraswamy Report (submitted to the UN Commission on Human Rights in1996) that caused the term “sex slaves” as a descriptor for the comfort women to
circulate all over the world. Japan’s Foreign Ministry submitted a rebuttal to the UN
dismissing the report, calling its findings unacceptable, patently false, and a distortion ofhistory, but later retracted the rebuttal.
In 2015 a group of private citizens led by Yamamoto Yumiko, chairwoman of Japanese
Women for Justice and Peace, and including myself, decided that something had to bedone to remedy this untenable situation. If the Foreign Ministry refused to act, we would

1

have to take the matter into our own hands. And that is exactly what we did. We traveledto Geneva, and there we refuted two of the false rumors: (1) that the Japanese abducted
women and forced them to serve as comfort women, and (2) that the comfort women
were sex slaves. The outcome of our appearance at the UN was the CEDAW’s issuanceof the aforementioned questionnaire. This was an extraordinary opportunity, one thatwould (depending upon the government’s response) go a long way toward correcting theUN’s perception of the comfort-women controversy.

One-minute speeches
At the 63rd Session of CEDAW on February 16, 2016, a meeting was held on the subjectof Japan. It was preceded on February 15 by a gathering called a “working meeting.”
That meeting was an opportunity for Japanese NGOs (non-governmental organizations)to suggest questions for CEDAW members to pose to the Japanese government, to clarify
responses previously submitted. Then, on the following day, CEDAW members would
hold a dialogue with Japanese government representatives based on opinions expressedby the NGOs.
Ms. Yamamoto and I were each given one minute to speak at that working meeting. We
decided to speak in English. Representatives of eight Japanese NGOs were present;
speakers from larger organizations were allotted four- to five-minute time slots to state
their positions. The meeting room was filled to capacity with Japanese.
Sugita Miyo’s remarks
I was the first to speak.
“The Japanese government responded (to the CEDAW questionnaire) by stating that‘[t]he forceful taking away’ of comfort women by the military and government
authorities could not be confirmed.’ However, the Coomaraswamy Report maintains that
200,000 Korean women were drafted as military sexual slaves in a ‘systematic andforcible’ manner. Accordingly, we request that you ask the Japanese government toelucidate this obvious inconsistency.”
Yamamoto Yumiko’s remarks
Then Ms. Yamamoto spoke.
“At the 111th session of the Human Rights Committee in 2014, the Japanese government
contended that the term “sex slaves” was an inappropriate term to use to describe comfort
women. Therefore I request that the Committee ask the Japanese government whether theJapanese military authorities or the Japanese government compelled young women to2become sex slaves in wartime. Furthermore, in 2015 the Japanese and South Korean
governments reached an agreement with regard to the comfort-women controversy. The
Japanese government’s announcement states that the Prime Minister expresses ‘his mostsincere apologies’ to the comfort women. I request that the Committee ask the Japanese
government to explain what ‘apologies’ means, as well as ‘involvement of the Japanesemilitary authorities at that time.’”
I wondered whether the Japanese government would respond to our questions and reveal
the truth, once and for all.

Queries from a Committee member from Austria
February 16 marked the official commencement of the session.
Bureaucrats from six Japanese government ministries and agencies (Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Cabinet Office, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare;
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology; and the National Police
Agency) were present.
The session opened with a 20-minute speech delivered by Sugiyama Shinsuke, deputy
minister for foreign affairs and head of the Japanese government delegation, in which heoutlined Japan’s basic position. He touched upon the comfort-women controversy only
briefly.
“As this Convention does not apply to any issues that occurred prior to Japan’s
conclusion thereof (1985), the Government of Japan considers that it is not appropriate
for this report to take up the comfort women issue in terms of the implementation of State
Party’s duties regarding the Convention.”1
I must admit that I felt uneasy when I heard him say that. I was afraid there would be nofurther mention of the comfort-women controversy. Worse, I feared that we would lose
what seemed like our only opportunity to speak out about the controversy in aninternational forum.
But my worries were allayed when Ms. Lilian Hofmeister, a Committee member from
Austria, asked some questions.
“The comfort-women controversy concerns the violation of human rights. The victims
are still not satisfied. An agreement between the two nations was concluded lastDecember, but exactly what action do you intend to take? And what does the Japanese
government intend to do for victims in other nations, such as China and the Philippines?
What about reparations to the victims, prosecution of the wrongdoers, and investigation
into the responsibility of Japanese military authorities? Do you intend to revise Japan’s
1www.mofa.go.jp/files/000051250.pdf.

3history textbooks? Are you prepared to compensate the victims and provide them withpsychological rehabilitation?

Deputy Minister Sugiyama reveals the truth
Deputy Minister Sugiyama then proceeded to provide coherent answers to the questions
asked.

Statement delivered by Deputy Minister Sugiyama (February 16, 2016)“As stated in the written answer to the questions posed by the Committee, theGovernment of Japan conducted a full-scale fact-finding study on the comfort womenissue in the early 1990s. That was when the issue started to be taken up as a political anddiplomatic issue between Japan and the Republic of Korea. However, ‘forceful taking
away’ of comfort women by the military and government authorities could not be
confirmed in any of the documents that the Government of Japan was able to identify inthis study.
“The reason behind the widespread belief that comfort women were ‘forcefully taken
away’ is a fabricated story by the late Seiji Yoshida in his book entitled ‘My War Crime’
published in 1983. In this book, Yoshida illustrates himself hunting many women byorder of the Japanese military in Jeju Island of the Republic of Korea. At the time, thecontent of his book was widely reported as if it were a true story by the Asahi Shimbun, amajor Japanese newspaper. It eventually made a tremendous impact not only on public
opinion in Japan and the Republic of Korea, but also in the entire international
community. The reality is, Yoshida's story has later been proven to be entirely a productof imagination by scholars.
“In fact, the Asahi Shimbun later published articles several times including on August 5
and 6, and later in September, 2014, admitted having published erroneous articles, andofficially apologized for it to their readers.
“The truth is that the figure ‘200,000 persons’ as the number of comfort women also
lacks concrete evidence. The Asahi Shimbun clarified in its article dated on August 5,
2014 that ‘Women volunteer corps’ refer to the ‘women volunteer labor corps’ that wereorganized to mobilize women as a work force during the war in Japan proper as well as in
the former colonies on the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan’ and that ‘With the objective ofusing the women as a work force, the corps were different from comfort women who
were made to serve as sexual partners for military personnel.’ The Asahi Shimbun
admitted that the figure ‘200,000’ which it had reported was originated from its confusion
with comfort women of the Women Volunteer Corps who were mobilized as a war-timelabor force.

4

“What should be recognized is that the Government of Japan has been sincerely dealing
with this issue through measures such as the Asian Women's Fund even before the mostrecent agreement. Building on such experience and under the most recent agreement, thefollowing has been decided: first, the Government of the Republic of Korea establish afoundation for the purpose of providing support for the former comfort women; second,
its funds of approximately 1 billion yen be contributed by the Government of Japan as a
one-time contribution through its budget; and third, projects for recovering the honor anddignity and healing the psychological wounds of all former comfort women be carriedout under the cooperation between the two Governments.
“Each government is currently making efforts to faithfully implement the content of theagreement, and there is no change at all on this point. The understanding of theinternational community regarding such efforts by the two Governments would be verymuch appreciated. In this regard, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that theinternational community is now welcoming the agreement, as expressed by, for instance,
Mr. Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations.
“I would like to add one more point. Ms. Hofmeister pointed out examples of othercountries’ situations. Regarding issues of reparations, property, and claims pertaining to
the Second World War, including the point that Ms. Hofmeister pointed out, theGovernment of Japan dealt with such issues through the San Francisco Peace Treaty
concluded with 45 countries, including the US, the UK, and France, and through bilateraltreaties, agreements and instruments, which include the Agreement on the Settlement of
Problems Concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Co-operation between
Japan and the Republic of Korea and settlement between Japan and China. Based onthese agreements, I will not go into the legal details, but, the Government of Japan’s
consistent position has been that we have dealt with these issues sincerely and that theseissues had already been legally settled with the relevant parties to those agreements
including issues of claims by individuals.”2
The content of Mr. Sugiyama’s remarks is virtually the same as that of documents
submitted by the Foreign Ministry to the UN in November 2015.
However, Mr. Sugiyama did not refute the Coomaraswamy Report on that occasion.
Nevertheless, the Japanese government’s refutation of the accusation of forcible
recruitment, the number of comfort women (200,000), and the use of the term “sex slaves”
to describe the comfort women represents a giant step in the right direction.

Chinese committee member’s question
The committee members seemed surprised by Mr. Sugiyama’s remarks.
2

www.mofa.go.jp/a_o/rp/page24e_000163.html.

5

Ms. Zou Xiaoqiao from China posed the next question.
“The arguments in the Japanese government’s response are inconsistent. They contradict
historical fact. The Japanese government rejects accusations made against Japan in the
comfort-women controversy, but has entered into an agreement with South Korea. If
there is no basis for a comfort-women controversy, why was it necessary to conclude anagreement?”
It did not surprise me that the Committee members had doubts. The Japanese government
has issued apologies any number of times without ever denying the accusations against
Japan. But now its representative had categorically denied the accusations.
Mr. Sugiyama responded resolutely to Ms. Zou’s questions.
“Therefore, I have to say that criticism such as comments that the Government of Japandenies historical fact or has not taken any measures related to this issue contradicts thefacts.
“I have explained that ‘forceful taking away’ of comfort women could not be confirmed
in our study. … As for the phrase ‘With an involvement of the Japanese military
authorities at that time,’ the Government of Japan has admitted that comfort stations were
established in response to the request of the military authorities at that time, that the thenJapanese military had been involved in the establishment and management of the comfort
stations and the transfer of comfort women, and that the recruitment of the comfort
women had been conducted by private recruiters who acted in response to the request of
the military. Based on the above-mentioned facts, I gave an explanation earlier in order toclarify that the newspaper that published the article admitted that the number of 200,000
was completely mistaken, for example.
“I also would like to reiterate that the expression ‘sex slave’ contradicts the facts. It isalso the case that the expression ‘sex slave’ does not appear even once in the joint
announcement by the Foreign Ministers of Japan and the Republic of Korea, which is
attached with our written answer.
“Therefore, highly regrettably, I must make it clear that the Government of Japan can not
only accept any of the points made by Ms. Zou, but I also have to say that her statement
contradicts the facts.
“The agreement that we provided to you is the agreement between Japan and theRepublic of Korea and both governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea are
currently making efforts to faithfully implement the content of the agreement. This has
not changed at all. I would like to ask for your understanding on this point.”3

3

http://www.mofa.go.jp/a_o/rp/page24e_000163.html.

6

The part about Japanese military involvement was included in Prime Minister Abe’s
response to a question raised in the Upper House Budget Committee on January 18, 2016.
Deputy Minister Sugiyama used similar language to rebuke the committee member.
Although a government response of this sort was long overdue, I found it almost
completely satisfying.

Foreign Ministry responds to UN questionnaire
There were several changes and complications after the Japanese government received aquestionnaire pertaining to its replies to questions asked at the CEDAW session.
In August 2015, when I learned that such a questionnaire had been issued by CEDAW, I
made some inquiries at the Prime Minister’s Office and the Foreign Ministry. In
November I heard that guidelines had been prepared that incorporated the government’s
position, i.e., no evidence had been found that would corroborate claims that women had
been abducted. I hoped that the government’s responses to the questionnaire would
repudiate those claims.
However, it seems that at that time there was considerable confusion within the Foreign
Ministry about the questionnaire.
The deadline set for the submission of the government’s responses to CEDAW was
November 6. When I checked with the Ministry in the beginning of November, I was toldthat the responses would be submitted by November 13 (the second weekend in
November). When I asked again during the third week of November, I was told that there
were problems with coordination between the Foreign Ministry and the Prime Minister’s
Office. In fact, the Foreign Ministry had not even sent the questionnaire to the Prime
Minister’s Office. I got the impression that the work had been delayed.
I was uneasy, but later someone involved with the project told me that the gist of the
responses was very close to what I had hoped for. I heard that the responses had been
submitted to CEDAW at the end of November, and felt relieved.

Doubts about the Japan-Korea Agreement
As 2015 was drawing to a close, I learned that Japan and Korea had reached anagreement about the comfort-women controversy.
I listened to the record of the press conference in Seoul at which Foreign Minister
Kishida Fumio announced the agreement. Immediately I had doubts about two aspects of
the agreement.

7

(1) Why include language like “with an involvement of the Japanese military
authorities?”(2) What is the meaning of “In addition, together with the Government of the ROK,
the Government of Japan will refrain from accusing or criticizing each otherregarding this issue in the international community, including at the United
Nations?”
Because the language in (1) was included (but without explanation), the reaction from theinternational community was more unfavorable than it had been in the past. As far as (2)is concerned, the United Nations is not a venue where governments make voluntarystatements. The committees operating under the aegis of the UN Human Rights Council
collect opinions from NGOs of the world’s nations and proceed to submit questions to therelevant governments. Since there are many nations whose citizens do not yet enjoy
human rights, the UN appeals to governments on behalf of citizens whose voices would
not be otherwise heard.
As difficult as it may be to believe, UN committee members operate under thephilosophy that private citizens are good, and governments are bad. The governments’
only role is to respond to questions.
Why did the forgers of the Japan-Korea Agreement, an agreement between two
governments, choose to mention “the United Nations” in the text of the pact?
One thing I noticed when I attended the Committee meeting was that all the NGOs
voicing opinions there, such as the Japan Federation of Bar Associations and the Japan
NGO Network for CEDAW, are left-wing organizations. Until we spoke out in Geneva,
they had a monopoly at the UN.

Collapse of monopoly rattles Foreign Ministry and left-wing groups
When we spoke out at the UN in 2015, the left-wing organizations lost their monopoly;
since then they have been champing at the bit. As has the Foreign Ministry, which has
managed to wriggle out of each crisis that approaches without making waves. My feelingis that that impatience is at the root of the inclusion of “United Nations” in the text of theagreement.
Conservative groups of private citizens had taken action designed to discredit lies about
the comfort women that had taken root in the international community. By restraining
those groups, the Ministry could prevent contentious debates at the UN, and by
establishing a defense line, it could avoid further involvement in the comfort-womencontroversy. That must be the reason for the agreement’s stating that Japan and Korea
would “refrain from accusing or criticizing each other regarding this issue in theinternational community, including at the United Nations.”

8

There is ample cause for concern over cooperation between the government and theForeign Ministry, and the left-wing organizations that insulted Japan at the UN to gain
control over the conservatives. After the government’s answers to the CEDAW
questionnaire were prepared, they were examined by the Cabinet Office’s Specialist
Committee on Monitoring.
But most of the specialist monitors are members of private organizations represented at
the UN Human Rights Committee session. Of course, Foreign Ministry staff members
also serve on the Specialist Committee on Monitoring. This situation causes one towonder about the cozy relationship between left-wing private organizations and thegovernment and Foreign Ministry.

Collusion between government and left-wing NGOs ends
Then, when I learned about the Fourth Basic Plan for Equality and about the Discussion
Group on Responses to Questions from the CEDAW in Connection with the Seventh andEighth Periodic Reports on the Implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, hosted by the Cabinet Office in Tokyo on
February 4, 2016, I felt even more uneasy.
Apparently one of the officially sanctioned side events at the 2016 session of the UN
CSW (Commission on the Status of Women), which will take place in New York City in
March 2016, will be co-sponsored by the Japanese government and the Japan NGO
Network for CEDAW. The theme of the event will be “Our Challenges for Eliminating
Gender Gaps in Economy, but the comfort-women controversy will also be addressed. I
was surprised that the Japanese government and left-wing NGOs were in such close
collusion.
Incidentally, the aforementioned Discussion Group has met several times, but it isunusual for people who are not leftists to participate. Anyone is welcome, but since themeetings are not publicized, they tend to be monopolized by certain groups. This time
was no exception, since the Cabinet Office made no real attempt to advertise the meeting.
But when Japanese Women for Justice and Peace found out about it, they launched an
online appeal for support, stating that there are groups committed to defending Japan’shonor in connection with the comfort-women controversy.
Those who responded were fewer in numbers than the members of left-wing groups, butthey were quite vocal and applauded enthusiastically when appropriate. Here are some of
their comments.


In Japan people call married women kamisan, which means “goddess.” Is thismale chauvinism?
It’s all very well to adopt the beneficial aspects of globalization, but every country
has its own traditions and culture, which we should be careful not to destroy.

9




There are workplaces that are not safe for women. It is unreasonable to expect
gender equality at every workplace.
In the past, it was always “women and children first” when a disaster struck. Will
gender equality change that philosophy?

As you can see, toleration of the collaboration between the government and left-wingNGOs is crumbling.

Did Japan-Korea Agreement necessitate alteration of responses?
In January 2016, as the opening of the CEDAW session approached, some shocking
information was revealed: the Japanese government’s responses to the CEDAW
questionnaire about the comfort-women controversy, scheduled to be discussed at thesession, and due at the end of November, had not yet been submitted.
Journalist Sakurai Yoshiko wrote about the delay in the February 1 edition of the Sankei
Shimbun, in her column “Toward a Beautiful, Strong Nation.” The information she
provides is virtually identical to what I was told.
The response from the government told of the false report printed by the Asahi Shimbun,
explaining that Yoshida Seiji’s confession — tales of going on a comfort-women hunt
was a lie, and that there is no evidence supporting the claim that anyone was compelled
to serve as a comfort woman. It also stated that the rumor that there were 200,000
comfort women arose because someone confused the comfort women with members of
the Women’s Volunteer Corps. It objected to the Coomaraswamy Report, maintainingthat its claims are biased and groundless. It also categorically denied lies South Korea
had spread all over the world about 200,000 women having been forced to become sex
slaves.
However, at the end of 2015, after the Japan-Korea Agreement was concluded, anattempt was made to substitute “together with the Government of the ROK, theGovernment of Japan will refrain from accusing or criticizing each other regarding thisissue in the international community, including at the United Nations” for the statements
outlined in the preceding paragraph.
The Cabinet Office must have objected to the substitution, and appended a short sentence
to it stating that no records had been discovered to support the accusation that women
were abducted; the responses were then submitted to CEDAW.
Even now I don’t know how the substitution came to be made.
Did the government submit its original version of the responses on December 8, and thenrewrite the response pertaining to Question 9 after the Japan-Korea Agreement was
concluded? Or did it never submit the original version? And when was the version that10

now appears on the website submitted? I have asked some Diet representatives to help me
find the answers to these questions.

11